Do We Ever Live Anything But the Absolute? A Reply to

Abstract

This essay is a response to G. St-Laurent's critical study of my book La phénoménologie comme manière de vivre (2021). But beyond the specific issues at stake in this book, our disagreement ultimately concerns the very meaning of philosophy, in particular the relationship it should or should not have with mystical thought. St-Laurent maintains that these two domains are mutually exclusive, and develops three objections in this sense: 1) firstly, the very idea of a "mystical experience", understood as an experience of the Absolute, can only be a contradiction in terms, all experiences being relative; 2) furthermore, any attempt to think or live in conformity with the Absolute implies performative contradictions, the Absolute being strictly unthinkable and impracticable; 3) finally, the early history of metaphysics teaches us that the quest for the Absolute was a dead end that Plato had the good sense to renounce. It would be wise to follow his example. I will respond to these objections one by one, arguing that philosophy cannot do without the Absolute, if it is a quest for truth, and ultimate truth if there is one. Although the Absolute must remain beyond the scope of intelligence, it is not beyond the scope of experience. Indeed, if the Absolute leaves nothing outside itself, we should expect every experience to be its immediate expression. There is therefore nothing to prevent philosophy from employing all the resources at its disposal to achieve its goal - even if this implies an excess of intuition over "simple reason".